Readers of the Guardian know that this newspaper has been at the forefront of championing changes to our libel laws. And with good reason. As one of the leading proponents of investigative journalism, its lawyers have frequently appeared in the courtroom, defending its right to publish information which is in the public interest.

Unfortunately, the Guardian and other media outlets have too often found themselves on the losing side of the battle. Our current libel laws, cobbled together over decades of legal practice, have sometimes proven to be a disincentive against investigating and reporting the things that matter to our democracy.

This is an issue that has been growing in importance, and urgency, over the past few years. Most recently, we've seen concerns about the number of costly defamation cases against respected scientists, researchers and writers.

Together with the responses we received to our recent consultation on defamation and the internet, and the recent report of the department of culture, media and sport select committee, we will use these recommendations to develop further reforms which will protect freedom of expression while continuing to ensure that individuals who are the subject of defamatory reporting have access to justice.

Today we've announced that, if re-elected, we'll be pushing ahead with action on a number of issues. We want to make changes as speedily as possible, but in some cases this may need legislation. We have therefore signalled our intention to introduce a draft Libel Reform Bill in the next Parliament.

The main areas we are looking at are threefold. Firstly, we'll be introducing a single publication rule, under which a defamation claim will have to be brought within one year from the date of the original publication. The interests of people who are defamed will be protected by giving the court the power to extend this period where necessary.

This element will specifically tackle the problem of internet publishing, and the way the law currently allows defendants to be taken to court every time allegedly libellous content is accessed online. This causes great uncertainty, as publishers are effectively subject to open-ended liability. Clearly, our current laws are not fit to handle the realities of the 21st century media landscape and internet use – this change will address that.

Secondly, the Bill will include provisions to prevent the growth of so-called "libel tourism", which some believe has been increasing rapidly in recent years. I'm asking the Civil Procedure Rule to consider tightening the rules where the court's permission is required to serve defamation cases outside England and Wales. This will help head off inappropriate claims at the earliest stage and stop them from reaching court.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly for the media – we'll be looking at whether to introduce a statutory defence to protect publications that are in the public interest. A statutory public interest test which is clearly and simply expressed could help ensure that the work done by journalists, scientists and NGOs to investigate and inform the public can continue – while also preserving the right we all have to protect our reputations.

These changes build on the discussions that have taken place over the last two months among the members of the libel working group, all of whom have made a very valuable contribution to the debate.

This is only the start of the reform process. We'll continue to consult with the media and legal professions, NGOs and the public as we develop our thinking further.

The English legal system is something we should all be proud of. Fair and open court proceedings, access to justice for all, and equality before the law are some of the basic tenets of our democracy, and these need to be valued and protected.

The last thing I want to see is our libel law being used to bring our legal system's reputation into disrepute. From people bringing their claims in English courts despite there being little or no link to this country, to the high costs of defending a court case discouraging journalists and editors from pursuing and publishing stories the public should know about – these have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and are matters of concern to us all.

At the same time, we also need to ensure that there is not a publishing "free-for-all", when articles of no public interest and little factual accuracy are produced, causing harm and hurt to those involved. We do need strong, effective libel laws to protect the reputations of those who fall into this category.

The steps the government has announced today will help restore a fair balance between these two needs.